I'd like to thank Jason for the links he sent me on his youtube channel.

I've seen many Karate Kata's performed with a Bo. The main problem is that no matter how advanced the Karate kata, the demonstration only shows the most basic of techniques with the bo. Not once have I seen a Karate/Bo Kata demonstrate correct usage with contemporary Kobudo styles such as Yamane Ryu or Taira lineage Kobudo beyond the very most basic techniques.

In 1562 general Ch'i Chi-Kuang published his manual Chi-Hsiao Hsin-Shu. Here he describes how soldiers should be trained and about martial arts in general. He states that empty handed fighting skills form the foundation of weaponry.

And I totally agree. The body mechanics are quite similar. So you could use a Bo for example to perfom an empty hand Kata with it but it is not the actual purpose of that form and thats why you only find basic movements there. To learn the good stuff you have to rely on the actual Kobudo-Gata.

So in my oppinon folks like Nathan Johnson overdo it for my taste claiming that Sanchin and Naihanchi are not for empty hand combat but for the use with weapons like Bo and Sai.

Jesse Enkamp even found out that the Pinan Sandan was actually invented to be used with an AK-47

So in my oppinon folks like Nathan Johnson overdo it for my taste claiming that Sanchin and Naihanchi are not for empty hand combat but for the use with weapons like Bo and Sai.

I can assure you Nathan Johnson and his group do not believe that Naihanchi is Bo or Sai, Naihanchi has been researched by Kodo Ryu and they believe that it is an early TuiTe 2 man drill to deliver the fundamentals, mostly from a law enforcement angle, they can/will provide more detail as im just a friend of the group.

From memory they do believe that Sanchin, Sanseiru and Seisan are Sai kata- something that they have VERY strong evidence for, not that I fully agree but it is seriously sound work IMO.

The Naihanchi was a generalization for folks. In the concrete case of Nathan Johnson I then revise my statement and slash the Naihanchi and put Sanseiru and Seisan into my statement. Nontheless I find it is to much for my taste. But hey that is just me .

From memory they do believe that Sanchin, Sanseiru and Seisan are Sai kata- something that they have VERY strong evidence for, not that I fully agree but it is seriously sound work IMO.

Where can I find this?

When you replace one weapon with one that has similar properties, I think it's pretty obvious that you can have success in using it in such a way. You could even have great success. You have no idea how many nails I have pounded in with a wrench. I'd go so far as to argue that was the original intention of the wrench, and people have been missing out. Pardon my facetiousness, but without access to further investigation that's what it sounds like is being said.

That aside, there are many systems in Southeastern Martial Arts that were built with this dual purpose in mind, but here's the thing: the effectiveness is based upon the principles of the art. Also, because we're talking about combat here, you're going to have so many cross-overs from empty-hand to weapon that it's a completely valid argument that armed and unarmed combat is one in the same. This is because we look at the principles of combat, rather than the respective techniques, although there are some physical expressions of those principles that are nearly identical. Take longsword fencing and Wing Chun for example. Both employ the use of bridging to accomplish their goals (Winden/Chi Sao, which I understand is not the proper word for it, but it embodies the principle in practice).

Again, this is because of an -examination of principles-. Longswords in WC practitioners hands =/= magic.

Interestingly, I cannot think of a system that started as an empty-hand system and was later expanded by weaponry. It seems to always be the other way around. However, the weaponry was always utilized in the way it was meant to be, not crammed into parameters that it didn't fit in.

From a (not-actually)modern viewpoint, law-enforcement and military practice skillsets that utilize all weapons in as close a manner as possible. This is because they don't have time to practice 801 different ways to do things, and, more importantly, it's dangerous for them to do so. Too much stuff to sift through for the proper reaction. The samurai, and certainly the peichin, were no exception.

This is a large reason why I have a problem with Sanchin being a weapon form. It is so basic that it doesn't make sense to take the time to codify what is essentially three drills into specific amounts of repetition, teach it empty-handed with all this stuff that you have to do when you're empty handed, THEN adding the weapon later just so that there was a way to practice the basics of handling sai.. Occam's Razor chews that up.

So in short, karate is karate and kobudo is kobudo. But speak in Spanish to an Italian and you'll see you can still have a conversation.

You could contact them? I am not a representative of the Kodo Ryu group, but I know them well as a close friend is a very senior member within the group.

As I understand it Sanchin is considered the basic handling form of the Sai, and the other 2 kata are the application practices. It is a seriously sound piece of research IMO and something that they feel did not happen on Okinawa, but in China.

Personally I am on the fence re the kobudo aspect, but I focus on Okinawan Martial Arts begining with the Shorei and Shorin divide era, for lack of a better descriptive! (Our group is part of an old family Shorin Line via Hohan Soken/Nishihira/Meloni (my teacher) Sensei lineage).

Nathan Johnson Sensei has produced several books and some have dvds to explain his groups theories and research, personally if I didn't do what I do I would train in a dedicated fasion with Kodo Ryu in an instant.

Let me know if you wish to have a direct contact within the group and you can go from there.

This is a large reason why I have a problem with Sanchin being a weapon form. It is so basic that it doesn't make sense to take the time to codify what is essentially three drills into specific amounts of repetition, teach it empty-handed with all this stuff that you have to do when you're empty handed, THEN adding the weapon later just so that there was a way to practice the basics of handling sai.. Occam's Razor chews that up.

Lets turn the tables Matt. Lets assume Sanchin IS Weapons form (Sai), how would you disprove this theory and what would you prove it to be instead? Lets consider this as an ongoing conversation, that cannot have a final answer in one or two posts.

Lets assume Sanchin IS Weapons form (Sai), how would you disprove this theory and what would you prove it to be instead?

When Sanchin is/was a Sai form, why people do it empty handed since Higaonna Kanryo? Higaonna learned that form in China as an empty hand form. If he had learned that form with Sai he would have had no reason to skip the weapon. Sai were known and available on Okinawa back then.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

As I understand it Sanchin is considered the basic handling form of the Sai, and the other 2 kata are the application practices. It is a seriously sound piece of research IMO and something that they feel did not happen on Okinawa, but in China.

I would be interested in the facts that should support that theory. What is the reason for the Sai not used with those three Kata anymore even in China? I highly doubt that.

Let me try to answer your question, because Higashionna did not learn the form with Sai. Because Kanbun Uechi did not learn the form with Sai. Because at that time, when they learned the (empty hand version) form - the original method of applying the Sai, were allerady lost.

One question at a time - now you can also join in an try to answer: " Lets assume Sanchin IS Weapons form (Sai), how would you disprove this theory and what would you prove it to be instead? Lets consider this as an ongoing conversation, that cannot have a final answer in one or two posts."

your game aside. The burden of proof lies with the guy that came up with that theory.

I found a thread in another forum discussing the book, where N. Johnson published his theory in and from what I read it is pretty obscure.

He focusses mainly on the Uechi versions of the above mentioned Kata and discarded the Goju versions because it is arguably not finally clear were Miyagi learned his versions of Sanchin, Sanseiru and Seisan. What does that matter? Uechi Kanbun learn Pangai Noon in form of three Kata (Sanchin, Seisan, Sanseiru) from a man named Shushiwa. Miyagi learned his forms probably from Higaonna.

Another thing is there are a lot of Seisan versions out there not only Nahate versions. If the Seisan once were done with Sai (why of all things Sai?) why is there not one single version of Seisan nowadays that is practised with a Sai? Matsumura Sokon was known to be well versed handling a Sai and Seisan was a Kata he taught too. But he taught it empty handed and developed a Sai-Gata (Matsumura no Sai). He learned it probably from a Chinese by the name of Iwah.

How long should this change go back in history? In what time frame these changes should have happend? The Sai is a weopon that is very old with its origin not in China but rather in India or Indonesia. I bet you can't find any Sai forms there that looks like Sanchin, Seisan or Sanseiru.

Sanchin and Seisan were used to introduce martial arts to beginners. They are heavily focusing on body structure and other things. Since the empty handed fighting methods are the foundation of fighting with weapons how do you put a pair of Sai into the hands of a beginner and let him start? I guess I would have my problems focussing on my body with the heavy Sai in my hands. I would worry about how to handle them and I would loose my concentration on the lower body. So were those Kata originaly Sai-Gata? I don't think so!

Sure you can do every form with a weapon, even Pinan/Heian Sandan with an AK-47 and a set of hand granates, since they sould build the foundation but it was not their original purpose.

"Greetings All The burden of proof does indeed fall on the person(s) who propose the theory. I would like to offer an open invitation to anyone to come and spend a day to see and experience the evidence first hand. Here are some things that I would cover that appear in Nathan Johnson's published works notably 'The Great Karate Myth'. Sanchin, Seisan, and Sanseru are kata originally designed to train and develop skills and techniques with the Sai. The Sai function was lost in China before the kata reached Okinawa and became the source material for 'Naha-te'. Goju and Uechi have the same source for Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseru and the changes and developments which separate them occurred later. I have no intention of becoming involved in forum debates. So anyone who would like to really look at the evidence my door is open! I am based in Brighton, my email address is tommaxwell31@hotmail.com Kind regards Tom Maxwell Chief Instructor Kodoryu

@Ky0han, i don't see your point? Can you please prove any other theory of what Sanchin should be used for?

(why of all things Sai?) because that is the premise.

But he taught it empty handed and developed a Sai-Gata (Matsumura no Sai). He learned it probably from a Chinese by the name of Iwah. - yes because he learned it without original context

How long should this change go back in history? - Around the Ming Dynasty in China

They are heavily focusing on body structure and other things. Since the empty handed fighting methods are the foundation of fighting with weapons how do you put a pair of Sai into the hands of a beginner and let him start?

Yes, but you do not think of the "right" beginners. If you think of Law Enforcement of the past, these beginners should learn to handle tools for disabling bladed assailants (Sai).

But please, i can only encourage people to go and train with Tom, i started going to england to train with him back in 2010, after seeing their Rokkishu application from Goju Sanchin and Rokkishu(Tensho). I just returned last week from a training session with him, where we practiced (Uechi) Sanchin and (Uechi) Seisan and more.

Nikolaj, thank you for your post. The thing is I can't proof or disproof anything in regards to that theory. I am not a professional Karate historian. So I am lacking source material to prove otherwise. But I am sceptical and tend to not believe in this theory.

When those changes were around the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644) it is impossible to prove the claims without the use of written sources. When you can provide sources that back up the whole theory then there is a good chance I can be convinced.

Kyoshi wrote:

Yes, but you do not think of the "right" beginners. If you think of Law Enforcement of the past, these beginners should learn to handle tools for disabling bladed assailants (Sai).

Mhhhh. Beginners are beginners, whether civilian, law enforcement or millitary. General Ch'i Chi-kuang (1528-1588) promoted the training of unarmed methods in his book Chi-hsiao hsin-shu because he saw it as a good basic training for his soldiers. So even soldiers back in the Ming Dynasty got no weapons training before their basic training which consisted of those 32 empty hand postures.

So for me there has to be a written source that a version of Sanchin, Seisan and Sanseiru already existed back in the Ming Dynasty and the second would be that they were originally used with Sai and the third why were they practised empty handed all over sudden.

I don't know. I am a Shotokan adept. I never trained in Uechi Ryu/Pangai Noon Sanchin.

First of all I guess this move helps you with the rooting and flexing of the lats building correct body structure.

In regards to the application when I look at youtube videos I can imagine that it looks like someone is drawing a pair of Sai out from the hip to spear them forward. Or maybe someone is drawing two Colts out of the holsters to shoot to the front.

The movement is just demonstrating a pulling back of both hands to the hips and after that the hand go back to the front pushing slightly downwards. So maybe you a getting gripped by an opponent with a double wrist grab. You pull both hands in while gripping the attacking hands and just push them back? Never studied Sanchin in any form, so I really don't know so don't quote me on this one.

Again you can perform that Kata with Sai, sure thing (I never said otherwise), but it is hard to proof that this was the original purpose. Until there is no historical written sources that pop up I will have my doubts.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell used this analogy to illustrate that there is no obligation on people to disprove the assertions made by others. The bare bones of the argument go something like this:

If I say there is a teapot orbiting the earth, it’s up to me to prove that is the case. I can’t simply say to doubters, “OK, prove to me there IS NOT a teapot orbiting the earth!” This would seem to apply here, and I think everyone accepts that. I would, however, also add that it is up to those making the statement to make their case to the wider community if they wish for the wider community to accept it. In my view it is not enough to say, “We have the evidence, but you have to come and get it if you want it, and until then just trust us that we have it.” To me, that’s a little like saying, “There really is a teapot orbiting the earth, you just need to build a rocket and see for yourself … and if you’re not prepared to build a rocket then you’ll just have to believe that what we state is true.” Again, the obligation on providing evidence – if they wish the assertion to be accepted by the masses – is on those making the claim. It’s not for the others to “seek or accept”.

If Sanchin is indeed a Sai kata, then it’s up to those who think that to make the case. We practical bunkai types have done that and hence the “mainstream” karate world have found it impossible to ignore. Additionally, the evidence we present is found to be compelling which is why there is an ever growing number of karateka coming over to this way of thinking. Those who purport that Sanchin is a Sai kata need to do the same … and if the evidence is compelling it is sure to get mainstream support. There is an obligation on the listener to objectively asses that information and keep an open mind, but the “work” needs to be done by those making the assertion.

Nathan J. Johnson’s “The Great Karate Myth” is the book (and DVD) which puts forward the case. For the record, while the book does focus around Sanchin, it is also suggested that other karate kata are for Sai too; including Kushanku (Kanku-Dai).

It’s not a book that is widely available and I was privileged enough to be given a copy by Mr Johnson when we met at a martial arts show in 2006. I’ve read the book from cover to cover and I’ve watched the DVD. I enjoyed both a great deal, and I’ve discussed the information put forward with several high ranking people who have also read the book. It’s a good read and Mr Johnson is a nice guy, but I personally did not find the argument put forward to be convincing.

The preface to the book includes the following:

The Great Karate Myth wrote:

… what if I were to suggest that the art of karate never truly existed as an unarmed art of self-defence, and that it’s original source material was never designed for plebeian fisticuffs, but for something infinitely more sophisticated but practical? What if I could offer evidence … proof?

I don’t think the book lives up to the bold claim of giving “proof”.

The book does a good job of showing why formal “kicks, punches and blocks” from 10 feet away is not a practical way to view kata … and I’m sure everyone here would agree with that. But in the context of the case put forward by the book it comes across as presenting a straw man argument. Using these very bad examples as proof that kata can’t be for unarmed combat is obviously far from convincing, as there are infinitely better examples which are highly pragmatic i.e. saying the 2nd and 3rd move of Pinan Sandan is a simultaneous block to a simultaneous high and low punch (an example used by the book) and as such is ineffective is blindingly obvious … but it does not follow that because of that the kata are not for unarmed combat, but for the use of a sai when making arrests. There needs to be positive evidence that the kata are for use of Sai during arrest; and the book does not deliver that evidence.

Another argument made is that karate has not had much success in the UFC, and hence this proves it is not for unarmed combat. This fails to acknowledge the importance of context and the differing types of violence, and again, even if you put that to one side, it does not prove that the kata were designed to teach arrest technique using sai. Comparisons with boxing are also made, and, for me, also fails to convince for the same reasons.

There are references made to Mr Johnson’s previous work on Naihanchi:

The Great Karate Myth wrote:

My detailed research establishes that Naihanchin is a mainstream Shuri-Te kata, comprised of techniques that in fact catalogue double armed grappling procedures designed to completely subdue an opponent via the twisting of the wrist joints, and the locking of elbow joints to ‘arrest’ that opponent …

… Note, the use of the term “arrest” does not imply that the person being ‘arrested’ is necessarily a criminal as such, but just that their movement (and therefore immediate liberty) is arrested, stopped, or jammed.

If you’ve not seen Mr Johnson demonstrate his take on this, you should try to see it as it is very cool! Found a snipet on YouTube:

As cool as it looks, ask any police officer or prison officer to comment on how effective this would be in restraining a violent and committed assailant (as opposed to a complainant uke) they would tell you it is severely wanting. To give an example, when I was writing a paper on Control and Restraint methods a couple of years ago, I read over many procedures from both police and prison services. In the prison service, it was generally stated that a minimum of three officers be present to retrain one person (ideally more, some prisons stating higher minimum numbers). If the numbers were not there, then officer safety must be the priority (i.e. the use of reasonable force to ensure safety until such time as numbers permitted the application of C&R procedures). I simply don’t buy the idea that one person can “completely subdue” another using wrist and elbow locks; and neither do the modern day professionals who have to conduct this kind of work.

The term “establishes” – which would suggest proves with certainty – is therefore overly strong as the methods put forward are not robust historically or practically in my view.

Shortly after the book states the following in relation to Sai:

The Great Karate Myth wrote:

Chin-Na [joint locking] originally underpinned a ‘civil arrest’ tradition that utilised Sai to disarm and arrest an armed offender, and ‘seizing and grappling’ techniques to subdue and arrest and un-armed offender, without killing or maiming in either case. The object being to ensure an offender was given the opportunity – required by law – to be detained according to the due process of law and rendered up in fit condition to face trial.”

The book continues to assert that the named karate kata were designed for the above objective. However, I can’t recall reading any historical information in the book which supports the claims made. I await to be corrected, but I recall reading the book waiting for the historical document / information that supports the assertion, but it never came. In the absence of POSITIVE proof to support the claim, then it remains an unproven assertion. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the use of strong terms like “proof” and “establishes” are not justifiably used.

We do have the likes of Itosu and Motobu firmly stating that karate is for civilian self-protection (as opposed to sporting or battlefield use). Where is the historical information that supports the above alternative assertion? That is the big unanswered question, and there are others too.

How did the likes of Matsumura, Itosu, Motobu, in fact all the past masters get it so wrong? What were the historical events by which lead to all these Sai kata becoming misunderstood empty-handed kata? Kushanku is put forward as a Sai kata, so how do we square that with what we know about the kata from other sources i.e. The Oshima Hikki - a document written at the time following the intreview of a recent eye witness (ship's cpatain) to Kushaku's methods - recording that Kushanku’s (the person) methods involved placing one hand on the opponent whilst striking with the other hand. We are also told that Kushanku also made use of effective ‘piercing’ leg movements and grappling. Why no mention of Sai? If Kushanku (the person) was primarily teaching Sai methods, why is there nothing at all to support that? It was directly observed that Kushanku stuck people, so why not go with that as the primary method? Matsumura is said to have directly studied with Kushanku and Tode Sakugawa (who is said to be the creator of Kushanku kata), so how did the “true purpose” of the kata become obscured so quickly; almost immediately in fact? Why not simply go with the statements of those who were there? I could go on, but these are the kinds of questions that need to be answered if we are to be able to conclude that Kushaku (and others) is primarily a Sai kata.

There are no robust answers put forward to these questions, and no positive historical support. Occam’s razor would apply here as the “Sai hypothesis” requires a lot of assumptions to be made. Seeing as we have alterative positions which don’t requires such assumptions, are practical, and do have historical documentation to support them , Occam’s razor tells us it is not logical to choose the “Sai hypothesis” over others that require far few assumptions and better explain the data we have.

In my view – as someone who has read the book and who knows a fair amount on the subject generally – what we have here is another set of ideas around kata application to add to all the others out there. There is nothing ground breaking or game changing here. It does not provide anything that caused me to have a major rethink because there was no positive proof for the assertions made, the arguments against karate kata being for unarmed civilian self-protection are straw man arguments attacking very poor examples, and I have strong reservations about the practicality of what is presented even when viewed on its own terms. In my view, there are much more robust ways of approaching kata both practically and historically.

The reason this view has not gained traction is not because of resistance to the idea, but because the idea is not strong enough. We have seen that many people are open to re-examining the meaning of kata historically and practically, and hence we see a growth in people ascribing to certain views, and a decline in people ascribing to other views. So, as I say, I think that those holding this view have, to date, not done enough to win people over … and the onus is on them to do that if they wish for the idea to gain wider support. It’s not up to others to seek out that information, and then seek to disprove it, or otherwise accept its validity.

I would suggest that everyone read the book for themselves, as I can guarantee you’ll find it an interesting read. I’d also suggest that you read it with an open mind and see if what is presented does present a compelling case to you. It’s healthy that alternative views are shared and examined. However, the individual ultimately needs to determine if what is presented rings true to them and has evidence to support it. If new evidence comes forward, and if new arguments are made, I am open to looking at it. However, I’ve looked at it, and concluded it is not a robust enough hypothesis to warrant the claims made for it. On that basis, I will focus my valuable research and study time elsewhere until such a time as the hypothesis can be robustly presented as having enough merit to warrant further consideration.

Here is the trailer to “The Great Karate Myth”. For me the statement, “Ancient karate kata were only ever intended to train a person in the use of weapons or in grappling. Karate kata were never meant for punching, kicking or blocking” is very bold and contrary to historical information as discussed in my above post. Again, to make such a claim there needs to be some historical information to support it.

On page 30 of the book – while discussing the Pinan kata – Mr Johnson states that Wanshu, Passai, Gojushiho, Chinto and Kushanku are all weapons kata:

“If, indeed as I suggest, these “antique” kata were originally constructed to catalogue (conceal) techniques designed to be used with weapons then component parts taken from them to form new kata become extremely problematic in terms of unarmed combat, no matter how clever contemporary explanations or applications may seem to be.”

No historical information is given to support the claim that these kata are indeed weapons kata. However, there is historical data which would suggest the claim is without foundation. Using Kushanku as an example, in the historical record we have an independent eye witness to his methods, who was not a karateka, stating his “methods involved placing one hand on the opponent whilst striking with the other hand” (see my post above).

It’s therefore not tenable to state that Kushanku is an “antique” weapons kata and as such as “only ever intended to train a person in the use of weapons or in grappling” and also was “never meant for punching, kicking or blocking.”

Kushanku’s methods we reported by an independent eye witnesses to include striking, and that is also what his student (Tode Sakugawa) recorded in the kata which bears his name, and when he – a direct student of Kushaku – taught others his methods he understood them to be unarmed combat methods including striking (not Sai or any other weapon), and that is also what his students in turn passed on as their understanding. How is it possible to state that eye witnesses and students with first hand contact and direct linage got it wrong? Especially when no alternative source for that kata being a weapons kata is provided?

Here is video specifically on Sanchin with Sai and I’ll leave those with greater experience of Sanchin to add their thoughts. However, as we know, it is possible to explain the function of the kata in other ways which are inline with the historical information we have (i.e. karate kata are for unarmed combat). I am also left wanting the historical basis for the assertion that Sanchin is categorically a Sai kata?

Whatever conclusions you draw, I hope the videos are useful in helping get a clearer picture of what is proposed.

The book is out of stock via Amazon, so I’d advise getting a copy via the above link ASAP. if you wish to know more about the above.

All the best,

Iain

BLURB: 'The Great Karate Myth' is simultaneously a controversial exposé, and an instructional manual. It constructively challenges virtually everything the seasoned Karate enthusiast and novice alike may believe about the art of Karate, its origins and its original purpose.

If you already practice any of the mainstream Karate styles, (Shotokan, Goju Ryu, Wado Ryu, Uechi Ryu, etc.) after reading this book, you will never view Karate in the same way again! And even if you do not practice Karate, you will find this book to be a fascinating and comprehensive guide to the reality behind the myth that has become Karate.

I would love to provide the historical information i were in posession of this. Unfourtunately i have it only verbal - i have become a member of the Kodoryu Society and will try to share some of the knowledge and back it up, once i get there (5-10 years ;-))

Untill then, i will practice my Sanchin and Seisan with Sai as it definately makes the most sense to ME, in terms of practical interpretation and context of the Uechi form.

I would love to provide the historical information i were in possession of this. Unfortunately I have it only verbal

Could you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean you have been verbally given references to historical information? If so, if you could share that people will be able to source check it for themselves. Or do you mean you have been given verbal assurances that this is historically valid without reference to externally verifiable sources?

Whilst I’m sure the interpretation with sai is very interesting (it certainly sounded it from the conversations we had when I was in Denmark) – and I’m sure it can be shown to work well – without externally verifiable sources it is very difficult to see how the claim for it to be the proven original meaning of the kata can be legitimately stated. Without that historical validation, it has to viewed as a modern day interpretation based on a historically unsupported view of kata. A far cry from the claims made for it.

Kyoshi wrote:

Until then, i will practice my Sanchin and Seisan with Sai as it definitely makes the most sense to ME, in terms of practical interpretation and context of the Uechi form.

That’s an entirely valid position to take in my view. Having had direct experience of the method, it makes sense to you and is how you wish to make use of that kata. That makes sense to me and I would suggest it is beyond critique.

I’m not questioning that the kata can be performed with sai; nor am I saying that those who chose to do it that are “wrong”. If that is what makes most sense to them, they are entirely right to utilise the kata in that way.

What I am questioning is the very bold claim that it has been proven that this was the original function of the kata. I would suggest that no positive evidence has yet been put forward to support that claim – but there does exist historical data that supports the view that the claim is not correct – and as such we need to strongly question the validity of such a claim.

People finding something personally valid is one thing and requires nothing other than personal choice. Claims of historical validity are very different and need historical support to back them up. As I said, without historical validation, it has to viewed as a modern day interpretation based on a historically unsupported view of kata … regardless of what any individual feels about it’s validity to them personally.

I hope readers get that distinction and can see that is the core point of my posts I this thread.

There are Okinawan Ryu where they are seperate, and those where they are not in my experience.

Just IMO, if you understand the principles in empty hand Karate kata, you should be able to pick up a bo, sai, a hairbrush, a rolled up magazine, or a chair and put it to work. It'sactually a kind of impediment if you can't pick up a simple implement and figure out how to do the same thing your Karate does with it.

However, the traditiional kobudo forms might have some extra utility in terms of what they transmit, and for that reason kobudo-specific kata make sense to me as well.

It's pretty likely that at one time training started with weapons, in today's world things are reversed, but it seems to me that if the transition is a particularly confusing one , something is off with the strategy itself.

I think if you approach Kobudo today as a somewhat practical venture rather than historical preservation, it is a very simple practice, and you can know pretty easily whether your stuff is fit to purpose or not.

Far as the empty hand kata being only weapons kata ala Nathan Johnson, honestly this has always seemed preposterous IMO, and if true, it would make them one of the most worthless systems of teaching weapons skill known to man. You can learn the kihon neccessary for sai (for instance) without anything like sanchin. I think Iain is right on the money with the Occam's razor argument here.

On the law enforcvement/ civilian kata bit, I do not think there is much in Karate minus a few arm wrenches and wristlocks that fit the bill, and when it does (Motobu Unduni etc.), it tends to look alot like Jujutsu from mainland Japan that was purposed for that..in other words, it looks like ti should for that kind of art. most Karate kata don't look like that.

Having read through this long (and interesting) debate.. the one thought that springs to mind is that "if you carry a hammer everything looks like a nail"

As Matt Perlingiero alludes to in his earlier post, there will be common simularities (physical and tactical) with the martial practice of weapons and without weapons, and it is quite easy to see these themes and patterns repeated through out kata and the practice of weapon and weapon-less combat. Seeing patterns in things is part of the human condition (seeing a likeness of Iain in my breakfast is not proof of his divinity - he would have to also appear in my lunch and supper before I could be convinced)

It seems to me (albeit from a position of no experience of Sanchin) that Mr Johnson has developed a really neat hypothesis for the origins of the Sanchin kata, and looking at the youtube video Iain attached, it is clear Mr Johnson has done a good job of demonstrating his thinking. ... but just because the use of Sai fits neatly with the Sanchin kata movements, it does not necessarily follow that this is true for all "ancient" kata. This is just a correlation not a diffinative causal link.

I do not have any experience of Kubudo, but in my youth I used to fence to competition level - rather unsuccessfully I might add. Just looking at a basic straight lunge with a foil is remarkably similar to a kazami-suki, and I could build a hypothesis that the origins of that punch are based in the ancient art of fencing. However this is just an example of co-vergent adaption with karate as both techniques in each separate art have similar functions. In fact my fencing hypothesis is just an observation and not even evidence of the origins of Kazami-zuki.

This is a very interesting discussion. I don't have anything to add where the karate kata are concerned. However, here is a video of a White Crane Kung Fu Sai form. Given the connection between karate and southern kung fu, especially white crane, this should be of interest. The question would be whether the content of the white crane sai form reveals similarities to the proposed usage of the karate kata with the sai.

Anyway, this is more for comparison sake. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on whether this white crane usage resembles the sai usage proposed by kodo ryu.

Here is one more White Crane Kung Fu form which may add to the discussion. The title of this one in English is "Three Battle Meridian Mallet". However, the "Three Battles" is actually, if I am not mistaken, "Sanchin" or "San Zhan" in Chinese. So, what we have in this video clip is a White Crane Sanchin staff form. This begs the question - does sharing a name indicate that the weapon form, or kata, is the same as the one done with empty hands?

If there is a historical record, which has not been divulged, using the name Sanchin Staff Kata or Sanchin Sai Kata, would that necessarily prove that the "Sanchin" in question is the same as the Sanchin empty hand form? Without a detailed record of the movements involved, a shared name does not prove a true connection.

While digging up those two videos I found an interesting video of a "Yin Yang Three Battles (Sanchin)" form from another style of Southern Kung Fu, interestingly enough a Tiger style rather than Crane. The description of the video claims that one of the masters of the style taught martial arts to the founder of Uechi Ryu - Uechi Kanbun. So, practioners of Uechi Ryu and of Sanchin will be interested in seeing this version of Tiger style Sanchin.

The Tiger style Sanchin is similar to Sanchin from the karate styles, but may have more difficultly adapting to the Sai, so seeing this form and thinking of the sai may be a stretch. Does this show an earlier version of Sanchin with no weapons connection? What do you think?

I started with the Bo, and was going to move to Sai in the discussion, as that is the order that both systems of Kobudo I study present them, so I think its interesting the discussion went that way on its own.

I only skimmed the posts, and will re-read when I have more time, but I'd like to suggest something.

When learning the bo in Yamane Ryu, it is common to learn the footwork first with no bo, then learn the hand movements with no bo. I've been told traditionally the student would practice the first form without a bo for a year, possibly longer. Could the same training method have been applied to the Sai? Potentially Sanchin and Seisan are sai kata, just practiced by a beginner without sai, and perhaps the student discontinued formal training, thus never learned the forms with an actual weapon. Just a thought.